I’m a Columbia University alumnus. Firing the president is a good start

The departure of Columbia's president Minouche Shafik isn’t nearly enough to fix one of America’s most important universities

By William R. Gruver
A version of this piece first appeared on FoxNews.


Columbia University has finally parted ways with its failure of a president—and the only surprise is that it took so long. Minouche Shafik, who resigned on Wednesday, leaves a legacy of division and violence. But her departure isn’t nearly enough to fix one of America’s most important universities. The school must prove—from top to bottom—that it’s willing to put true learning ahead of radicalism. So must every university in America, for that matter.

I say this as someone who not only graduated from Columbia, but was present on campus during the violent protests of 1968. Then, like now, protesters attacked their fellow students and stormed campus buildings. Then, like now, campus leaders did too little, too late, to restore order. More importantly, both then and now, the adults in the room tacitly accepted and even encouraged extremism—because they’d forgotten that higher education is supposed to focus on finding truth, not trendy partisan fads.

Minouche Shafik is a case in point. Throughout her time at the university’s helm, she pandered to the radicals who should have been immediately punished for their actions—or better yet, stopped in the first place. She never took meaningful steps to channel the emotion of students (and professors!) into constructive discussions about a better path forward. Instead, she allowed destruction to run rampant, for all the world to see.

Her actions—and inactions—had predictable consequences. And if there was any doubt about her unfitness for office, Shafik proved it again in her resignation letter. She said that she found it "difficult to overcome divergent views across our community." But universities aren’t supposed to overcome divergent views. That just means creating a monoculture, which already describes most of higher education. Instead, universities are supposed to respect and direct divergent views for the betterment of all.

Is Columbia University willing to do that? Is it willing to create a culture of intellectual honesty, inquiry, and creativity? While it’s certainly good that Minouche Shafik is gone, it’s far from clear that campus leaders are willing to do what needs to be done. They must prove that they’re willing to return this storied institution to its fundamental mission of educating students and pursuing truth.

That starts by hiring a new president who understands the purpose of higher education. Columbia should look at Dartmouth’s president who, after October 7, promoted civil discourse among students and faculty, instead of staying silent and encouraging violence. That school has rejected radicalism in favor of real learning.

But hiring the right president is only the first step of many. Columbia must bring in new professors who are intellectually diverse and bring students together in forums for discussion on tough issues. Ultimately, it must bring out the best of higher education, causing students and professors alike to challenge each other in pursuit of understanding and truth.

Until that happens, Americans should still regard Columbia University with suspicion. Parents should think twice before sending their kids to a school that hasn’t clearly reformed itself. Donors should steer clear of giving money until they know their generosity will help more than it harms. I gave to Columbia for five straight decades. I won’t give them another penny until I see real change at every level.

Minouche Shafik is gone, but Columbia still has a hell of a lot more work to do. Hopefully, my alma mater will actually do it, instead of just hiring another president who lets the rot continue. Students—and American society—deserve so much better.

I witnessed the campus crisis at Columbia University in 1968, and shocked to see history rhyme in '24

Why did history rhyme? Because Columbia’s leaders sang from the same failed songbook

By William R. Gruver
A version of this piece first appeared on FoxNews.

“Violent solution follows failure of negotiations." 

So read the headline in Columbia University’s student newspaper, the Spectator – not on April 30, 2024, but rather April 30, 1968.

As a student at the university’s business school at the time, I’m now shocked to see that my alma mater’s leaders didn’t learn the lesson of their own history. They deserve the most blame for the mayhem that has engulfed one of America’s most prestigious schools, and if they don’t own it and act accordingly, Columbia’s future is bleak indeed.

I vividly remember the campus crisis of ’68, which bears many similarities to that of today. Then, as now, a large group of students and outside agitators swarmed the university to protest the issue of the day. They fell into two camps – one opposing the Vietnam War, the other opposing the construction of a nearby gym on racial grounds.

Yet while the proximate causes differed, the modus operandi was the same: harangue and attack peaceful students before occupying buildings.

I was on the receiving end of their vitriol. To mimic the business behavior of the time, my classmates and I wore coats and ties, which the protesters saw as the uniform of the capitalist oppressor class. They blockaded the business school, first spitting on us as we walked by, then throwing bricks and other heavy objects. Thankfully, I wasn’t injured, though several of my peers weren’t so lucky.

The administration should have intervened from the start, clearing the offenders from campus immediately. Instead, they acted timidly, abdicating their duty to provide an education. 

Many students, me included, couldn’t continue learning since we couldn’t physically enter our classrooms and online courses didn’t exist. I sat around waiting for the university to reopen for days, then weeks, as the campus descended into worse chaos. 

Emboldened by the administration’s inaction, the protesters occupied five buildings, including Hamilton Hall, the site of the current insanity. They even took the acting dean hostage in his office. The correct response would have been to evict these squatters within hours. Instead, the occupiers enjoyed their newfound domain for a week straight.

As surely as day turns to night, the administration’s continued weakness resulted in the need for a far stronger use of force. Campus leaders finally asked the police to restore order, which they promptly did. In the early hours of a Tuesday morning, they took back the buildings, arresting nearly 700 protesters, about 300 of whom were injured. Fifty-six years later, on a Wednesday morning, the police arrested more than 100 protesters, with reports of violent scenes in the hallways of an Ivy League institution.

Why did history rhyme? Because Columbia’s leaders sang from the same failed songbook. 

They valued pandering to a small number of radicals over educating the larger majority of tuition-paying students. They drew red lines, then dithered when protesters crossed them. 

Worst of all, they failed to prepare their own students with a proper understanding of both civic rights and duties – especially the duty to respect the rights of others, not least the fellow students and faculty who’ve suffered from the disruption of learning. Freedom of speech comes with a moral responsibility to listen when others talk.

In the wake of the ’68 protests, many alumni, parents and policymakers assumed it would never happen again. Clearly, we were wrong, and trust in Columbia has rightly plummeted to the verge of extinction. 

The school’s leadership – if not the president, then the board of trustees – must make a last-ditch attempt to reorient the school back to true education. As the latest protests make clear on campuses nationwide, students must be taught to disagree without being disagreeable, to argue vigorously but not violently. 

Acting at the request of Columbia University's Board of Trustees, police evict some 500 rebellious students who have occupied campus buildings for seven days in a protest against university policy on April 30, 1968.

Now more than ever, higher education needs a culture of free speech and open discourse, not cancellation and indoctrination under the guise of diversity, equity, social justice or some other ideological cudgel.

But the greatest educational need at Columbia doesn’t involve the students at all. The school’s leadership has failed its most basic test – that of learning the lessons of experience and avoiding the mistakes that have now devastated the school twice in little more than a half century. 

If they don’t study their past and present failures, history will surely rhyme for the third time, sounding the end of one of America’s most prestigious institutions.

Harvard, Penn, MIT’s Presidents Show Elite University Failures Post-Oct 7th

Here’s the Ivy Getting It Right

By William R. Gruver
A version of this piece first appeared in RealClear Policy.

Not all Ivy League schools are botching their responses to the Hamas massacre.

Hamas’ attack on Jewish civilians and the ensuing war in Gaza are exposing the leadership void at elite universities. In testimony on Wednesday before Congress, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT highlight the incompetence and failure to provide an intellectual and moral framework for furthering the debate and understanding on this Middle Eastern conflict.

Widespread institutional failure has brought into sharp relief the few college administrations that have managed to navigate the crisis without sacrificing free inquiry, free expression, or campus safety. Among the Ivies, none has done it better than Dartmouth.

In the days following the attack on Israel, Dartmouth faculty from the Jewish Studies and Middle Eastern Studies programs united to organize two forums to discuss in an academic setting the history of the conflict as well as the recent horrors. They aimed to create not a “safe space” but a “brave space”—one where Dartmouth students could ask questions, process emotions, think, and learn. The venues reached full capacity, with more than 1,600 viewers watching remotely.

Having provided students with a fruitful and peaceful avenue for learning and exploration, the administration had enough respect for its students and itself as a place of learning to distinguish between intellectual debate and mayhem—a line toward which too many college presidents have turned a blind eye. When two pro-Palestinian Dartmouth students threatened administrators and engaged in criminal trespassing, they were promptly arrested.

Entering the school year, one could just as easily envision the New Hampshire campus descending into the same chaos engulfing Cambridge or Philadelphia. Dartmouth ranked 240 out of 248 in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings. Newly appointed president, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock, however, has made it her mission to reverse the college’s recent decline. At her September inauguration as the school’s 19th president, Dr. Beilock championed the need for civil discourse on campus, announcing a new program called the Dartmouth Dialogue Project, which would “teach the skills of open, honest, and respectful communication” in and out of the classroom.

In the leadership seminar I’ve instructed for decades with Bucknell students, we discuss one of Mahatma Gandhi’s guiding principles: “satyagraha,” a Sanskrit word loosely translating into “truth force.” Satyagraha requires our thoughts, words, and actions to be aligned—in other words, it asks us to practice what we preach, to walk our talk.

Universities give the president, faculty, and the board of trustees a role in setting the culture and defining the university’s mission. But in that shared governance model, the president is always the lead dog. It is the responsibility of the president to step up and create a brave learning culture that encourages faculty to have these kinds of professional forums and discussions with students. Dr. Beilock is perhaps the only president in the Ivy League who is walking the talk.

The schools appearing before Congress this week are home to some of the world’s brightest scholars in Jewish and Middle Eastern studies. There is nothing stopping their presidents from affording their scholars a microphone to lead young students in discussions to understand more deeply the complex history, geopolitics, or current events without descending into mob violence; that they have failed to do so reveals what can happen to institutions—even those with seemingly limitless resources and brainpower—when they lack Gandhi's satyagraha.

As Congress investigates higher education’s mishandling of recent campus protests, they should not only look at what went wrong, but also look at what went right. It’s not just the response to Oct. 7 that warrants examination, but the campus cultures that led to violent reactions. Dartmouth’s President Beilock took the first step. Who’s next?

William R. Gruver is a Dartmouth College and Columbia University alumnus, professor emeritus at Bucknell University, an emeritus trustee at Berea College and Winston S. Churchill Senior Fellow of the Open Discourse Coalition, an alumni-founded nonprofit dedicated to promoting a variety of viewpoints at Bucknell University.

Blinded by Their SVB Hysteria, Politicians Risk Fighting the Last War

By William R. Gruver
A version of this piece first appeared in RealClear Markets.



By guaranteeing the safety of all depositors (not just those below the current federal guarantee of $250,000) at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, have we unwittingly begun to nationalize our banking system? Perhaps so, but it could be that what the Biden administration is doing is even worse.

Treasury Secretary Yellen first said under oath in Senate testimony that the new policy would apply to other failing banks in the future only if the FDIC board, the Fed board, she and the President agreed that it was the proper action. In saying this, she was suggesting a new American banking system. This new banking system would create both moral hazard where bank executives are encouraged to take on more risk than they would without the unlimited federal guarantee, and   crony nationalization where a depositor is protected only if what? If the bank is too big to fail? If the bank is in a region or an industry thought to be vitally important to the nation? If the depositors are influential political donors? If the board of the failing bank includes former members of Congress with eponymous banking regulation? Such socialization of risk and privatization of profit (moral hazard) for what will be perceived to be allies of the administration is antithetical to capitalism and to democracy. It cannot be allowed to stand as policy. 

Then, one week later, the Secretary reversed her position by saying that the administration was not planning to extend the deposit guarantee to all depositors. Her peripatetic policy announcements are inviting more runs that will destroy the remaining trust that depositors have in the banking system. In fact, depositors are already lowering the level of their bank deposits by fleeing to money market funds and shadow banking alternatives, thus trading one set of risks for another and setting the stage for the next round of crisis, emergency stopgaps and new regulation.

Senator Warren and others are calling for more regulation and blaming relaxation of some Dodd-Frank provisions for the current crisis. Targeted additional laws might help, but more laws will never replace sound judgment. Dodd-Frank focused on credit risk, a big contributor to the 2008 bank crisis. It did not address certain axiomatic banking principles like duration risk and industry concentration risk that apparently are not as axiomatic as some presumed.

Trying to address such fundamentals through more laws, however, will never replace competent oversight by regulators and governing boards. Any Banking 101 student should have seen the danger of the asset liability duration mismatch in a rising rate environment. Any competent regulator would view one of the fastest growing banks in the country not having a Chief Risk Officer in place for 8 months as a huge red flag. There were ample signs that could have averted the current crisis under existing regulation had we had in place more competent and more courageous regulators and governing boards.   Legislating intelligence and courage into those responsible for overseeing our banks will be a huge challenge.

Equally challenging is the passivity that large index-based institutions represent among the largest shareholders at many publicly traded corporations. For 90% of the companies comprising the S&P 500, Black Rock, State Street or Vanguard (the 3 biggest index fund managers) are the single largest shareholder. Estimates of the percentage of the American equity markets now owned by index funds range as high as 30%.  These funds by definition (passive) tend not to challenge management. Not having the beneficial owners of these index funds (pensions, endowments and individuals) appropriately represented on the governing boards of public companies potentially creates lax oversight and misaligned fiduciary responsibility that can be particularly worrisome on the compensation and risk committees.

Having said all of the above, as is said about generals who are always fighting the last war, and not the next war, the same can be said of legislators. Inevitably, rightly or wrongly, legislators will write new laws. There will be legislation that addresses some of the causes of the banking crisis of 2023 and by doing so could reduce the chances of a future banking crisis.

When in the 20th Century Carter Glass of Virginia led the passage of two laws that stood the test of time. The first established the Federal Reserve in 1913 and later the Banking Act of 1933, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that still federally guarantees depositors today. Glass was looking forward, not just backwards at the causes of proximate banking crises. Like Glass, today’s legislators would be better served by addressing the potential causes of the next crisis, such as the relatively unregulated esoteric money market funds and shadow banking vehicles into which much of the deposit base is now fleeing, as well as the potentially misaligned fiduciary responsibilities created by the size of the index- based shareholders.

William Gruver is a Professor Emeritus at Bucknell University, a retired General Partner at Goldman Sachs, and a senior fellow at the Open Discourse Coalition. 

Markets of the Roaring '20s: Are We Headed for Another Crash?

By William R. Gruver, Winston S. Churchill Senior Fellow

Watch William Gruver's webinar on the same topic below.